[EM] Clearing up an ambiguity in the detailed instruction

Michael Ossipoff mikeo2106 at msn.com
Fri Jan 19 04:21:31 PST 2007

Ironically the definition of Adjusted-Rounding that I've been posting since 
I first described it, the very brief definition, is complete, and my 
"detailed instruction" has an ambiguity:

The brief definition says that AR is a divisor method, differing from the 
others in that, instead of having a formula for its rounding point in each 
cycle, the rounding point in each cycle is chosen so that, with a particular 
quota being tried, the number of seats received by the cycle's states under 
that quota is as close as posible to the combined q of the states in that 

In that instruction, I say, for each cycle, to round to the nearest whole 
number the combined q of the states that cycle. Then I tell how to divide 
those seats among the cvcle's states, but I say it ambiguosly. Better to say 
it this way:

Definition of trying a quota:

For each state, divide that state's population by that quota. The result, 
for each state, is that state's q, for that quota. For each cycle (that word 
is defined elsewhere) add up the combined q of the states in that cycle, and 
roiund off to the nearest whole number. Choose the rounding point in that 
cycle so that the number of seats awarded by that quota in that cycle is 
equal to that rounded number.

[end of definition of trying a cycle]

Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list